BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Art, Fashion & Design >

Critics...do we need them?

  
 
Grey Area
14:39 / 20.04.04
As can be read here, the original of the most popular art print in Britain has sold for £744,800. The artist, Jack Vettriano, is a self-taught painter who, in a juxtaposition to his popularity, has no canvases hanging in any national gallery because the critics don't like him.

So the question is this: Is it time to re-evaluate the role of the critic? Maybe do away with it entirely? My impression of critics in recent months has been that they revell in elitism. They live in blissful ignorance that the population they expound to won't share their views, handed down like nuggets of enlightenment from a lesser god.

Regardless of the fact that they seem increasingly disconnected from what people really want, they continue to have an influence on the artistic production across the board, from music to theatre to painting and cinema. Do we need them though? Thanks to modern communication sources, we need not rely on one or two people telling us what's worth seeing; We can hear the opinions of everyone that's willing to share.

So, reactions and comments anyone?
 
 
Tzara
18:36 / 20.04.04
a critic can never give any real 'critism' toward a piece of art as all art is completly subjective. their have been a long history of art utopions that want to get rid of critics and conventonal ideas of good and bad art (dada and futurism) but the only reason a critic is really needed in the arts is to advance the commodity based western art forms that we see today (the guy that pickles sharks) every one should make art and every piece of art should be taken at its value to whoever is looking at it at that point, the title of artist should be given to anyone who has ever drawn a tree, and who is any critic to say that my interpretation of a tree is'nt a valid piece of art, i say they should be rounded up and burnt
 
 
Tom Coates
21:03 / 20.04.04
I'm not convinced about the burning stuff, but certainly I feel a certain amount of affinity with the 'anti'-critic position. Having said that, I wonder whether that's more to do with the character and behaviour of some of the critics rather than the validity of their role. I mean - I think the idea that art is utterly and totally subjective is worth unpacking a fair amount. Clearly people do experience quality with regards to art - on aggregate alone you could argue that more people like some kinds of art than others. That would suggest that on the criteria of 'liking', there are qualitative differences that aren't entirely subjective. Clearly popular appeal doesn't always equate with good - there are a great many foods which are popular which are not good for you, and there are many foods that are popular that don't actually taste that nice (in comparison with more expensive or time-consuming-to-prepare foods) but are popular nonetheless. People bring a range of criteria to the table when making these choices.

The role of the critic has always been to help to guide people to the best things - and I suppose the assumption has been that in a world where people inevitably have limited time and financial resources that the critic acts as a proxy for the instints of their audiences - reviewing things on their behalf so that they don't have to experience art or food or films that they might consider of bad quality. I suppose it's inevitable that the largest consumers of anything would develop rarified or specific tastes - but I think the place where art critics seem to fall down is in their relationship with the general public. Their opinions, in essence, seem to correspond with a very small proportion of the people at large - ie. those like me (and many other board members) who have humanities-based degree-educations and consider these types of art to be at least intellectually interesting even if not viscerally pleasing, and those people who are rich enough to buy art for love or to speculate with it. The audience they write for is so distinct and so isolated from the rest of the country that they'll inevitably seem completely out of touch and their need will be questioned. It's conceivable that we need less arrogant or establishment critics that represent different and slightly more widestream tastes. Or - on the other hand - maybe the critics' increased isolation says more about the increasing dislocation of the whole art scene from the rest of our culture, and maybe the problem lies there.
 
 
Grey Area
10:49 / 21.04.04
Perhaps one of the reasons critics can be seen to be distanced from their audiences and the arts lies in the fact that the spread of artistic endeavour has greatly increased in scope over the last three decades. We have seen a rapid diversification of genres into many little sub-genres...an example would be the move towards more avant-garde theatre productions away from the 'traditional' opera/play format.

So as more and more artists work to expand the envelope at an increasing rate, could it be said that critics are simply not keeping up with the pace of change? And that while they still have a significant (in terms of financial and social status) audience that listens to them, there is not much motivation for them to adapt?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:13 / 21.04.04
Way-ull, I'd say that to talk about critics as a monolithic mass probably makes as much sense as talking about artists as a monolithic mass... I guess you mean the sort of critics who regularly create pieces on art for the media, like Searle or Sewell. But if art is what you decide is art, surely *every* form of reaction is criticism of a sort?

I'm not sure why a particular piece of art selling for a particular amount has an impact on whether the critics' opinion of it is worthwhile. Art purchasing is a form of investment - I'm not entirely sure that aesthetics is even a necessary consideration... The markets and the buyers provide a measure of the artists' worth here. Are ytou sayingthat if the critic does not support that valuation he or she is a bad critic?
 
 
Tom Coates
06:48 / 22.04.04
I don't think it's as simple as that, no - certainly I think that the critic has a role to persuade interested parties about the value of art in general and/or the specific value of an individual piece of art. It's not just about representing the art to people with impartial judgements and being right or wrong. The role of persuasion is about helping to convey the value of something (that value being not financially expressed, but potentially translatable into financial terms). So maybe that's where the problem lies - that the critic is no longer communicating the value of art well enough and as a result are ailing as a tribe. Artists too may be suffering from the same problem - that their work is no longer communicative unless you have trained ears to listen.
 
 
Grey Area
15:34 / 22.04.04
I'm not sure why a particular piece of art selling for a particular amount has an impact on whether the critics' opinion of it is worthwhile. [...] Are you saying that if the critic does not support that valuation he or she is a bad critic?

The example of Jack Vetriano was just as an introduction...he's been in the media recently and it was an interview with him on Radio 4 that got me thinking about this subject. Plus he's a good example of someone who's popular status flies in the face of what the critics would have us believe.

So no, I'm not saying that if the critic does not agree with the valuation he's automatically a bad critic. I think we've already established that a critic can't be measured in terms of bad/good, simply because taste is such a subjective thing.

...wanted to get this out of my system. I'll be back to respond to both Haus' and Tom's posts later once my brain's working again.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
13:05 / 15.01.05
A critic's job is to have an opinion- an educated opinion. It's all very well saying let's make up all our owm minds, but sometimes criticism is neccesary to help us understand something in more ways than we at first thought possible.I also think other people's opinions on art are interesting, and wouldn't want to be stuck with just my own.

On The Other Hand:

Critics in the past presented a big brick wall of conservatism. I totally sympathise with Dada artists whose work was labelled as "immature" or worse "artless" by critics.

The point is that I have no problem with someone giving me their views on culture- just so long as they don't act like the be all and end all/resent progress.
 
 
alas
15:21 / 15.01.05
just so long as they don't act like the be all and end all . . .

But it's kind of fun to read someone, every once in awhile at least, who really has strong opinions about art--even if I don't share them--a strong critical stance that the critica truly seems to believe and argues for articulately. It's a pleasure to be in the presence of such a mind, I think. I.e., sometimes believing that one is the be and end all helps to make for interesting reading.

It seems to me the problem is not with the critics, but arises when art museum curators make decisions so slavishly following a few critics' leads, rather than exercising their own critical mental capacities.

I'm feeling shades of the American literature/canon question from the Head Shop arising as I think about this--regarding the function and purpose and goal of art museums/galleries . . . (perhaps there's already a thread on that somewhere here--I'm new to this particular area of 'Lithland... must look.)
 
  
Add Your Reply